Good point. The French system is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT! Sadaam's system is GUILTY TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE, of GUILTY BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S DISSENT, etc.
MSFE says he thinks. It is doubtful. There has been no evidence offered thus far to support this claim. MSFE, under your current guise and your previous one, you have not delivered one original idea or observation. You have nothing but snide and effete criticism. Enlighten us please. Examine current world events and give an insightful analysis. Without cut-n-paste.
I don't believe we are talking to a human but rather an experimental software agent that cuts and pastes. An automaton, to use an antiquated word.
I think (or at least hope) that he was responding to the same guy max401 was, and just did a poor job of choosing whom to quote.
To cite a few, all of which have been well-documented in the current conflict, including on videotape: Mistreatment of POWs, including display on TV, and possibly including execution. Aggressive action under flag of surrender. Soldiers out of uniform dressed as civilians. Soldiers using civilians as human shields. Placing troops and weaponry in designated sanctuaries, such as hospitals. These are just to start. The reason that the last ones are considered particularly significant is that if they became "accepted" practice worldwide, then civilian casualties would multiply enormously. Acts of aggression under flag of surrender are just as dangerous: If there can be no acceptable surrenders, then battles will tend to be fought to the last soldier, in the process multiplying military casualties enormously. Mistreatment of POWs likewise makes surrender less likely. I do not believe that the use of suicide bombers is a war crime in itself, except, as appears to have been the case, when the bombers are out of uniform or using unmarked civilian vehicles. As we have already seen, the practice seriously increases the danger to non-combatants.
I Missed Boat, Thankyou for clearing things up. KymarFye, I don't watch TV and missed the POW videos. The other evidence you site is reasonable save one - Soldiers out of uniform dressed as civilians. Actually, maybe it is reasonable but not one the US has always followed. During the revolutionary war uniforms were often not worn by "Americans." Numerous other commonly accepted practices were also not followed. The fact is our founding fathers utilized gorilla tactics. I am by no means dismissing the problems that arise when people don't fight fair, but in all honesty if I were backed in a corner and overmatched with my survival at stake I would use any means necessary to survive. Have we all forgotten the expression "All's fair in love and war,"?
Your point about what we did 225 years ago, comparing our war of independence to what the Arabs do, is as topical as discussions of wooden teeth, outdoor plumbing, muskets, slavery, women as property, yada, yada, yada. What is important is not what we did in our past, but what we do now, what rules of war have been accepted by societies who have evolved in the past 225 years....rather than continue to live in a 14th century Moslem brutality based society. Just Imagine that Saddam is leading an invasion into America, has the superior firepower, etc. Does he take pains to spare civilian life? Does he hold back on nuclear weapons? Does he treat prisoners on the whole with human dignity? Does he feed the poor, take care of the wounded, have a plan to reconstruct with the goal of democracy in mind? It is the weakness of the left that they in any way compare what we have done in our past to what Saddam does right now. Any objective party can see the difference. Does Saddam and company really act like a civilization worthy of the 21st century? Of course, they will dodge the question, and say.....ya but the USA, yada, yada, yada. What a sad state of affairs to have to apologize for and defend suicide bombers in the year 2003. http://members.cox.net/clearmember/Saddams way.asf